Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  January 9, 2019 1:59pm-4:00pm EST

1:59 pm
2:00 pm
2:01 pm
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 231. he nays are 194. he resolution --
2:04 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas 231. the nays 195. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 226 on which the
2:05 pm
yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 226, a bill to amend the small business act to include best in class designations in the annual report of small business prepared by the administrator of the small business administration, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:06 pm
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
2:10 pm
2:11 pm
2:12 pm
2:13 pm
2:14 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 414. the nays are 11. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from wyoming rise? miss china yes: mr. speaker, by
2:15 pm
direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 32. resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following committees of the house of representatives. committee on ethics, mr. marchant, house administration, mr. rodney davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to
2:16 pm
house resolution 28, i call up the bill h.r. 264, a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 264, a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 28, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, and the gentlewoman from georgia, -- the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves, each will control 30
2:17 pm
minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. quigley: now that democrats have taken the majority in the house, we have shown our intention to govern responsibly and have already illustrated real leadership at every turn. a welcome change after fighting through two years of chaos and obstruction, which culminated in a reckless shutdown. at the end of the day, the president's beloved border wall is the issue solely responsible for this irresponsible shutdown, and it is an absolute disgrace and a disservice to all americans to allow this broken campaign promise to hold all of the key funding bills hostage. from delays in the processing
2:18 pm
of federal loan assistance, applications for small businesses and the uncertainty created for taxpayers during tax season to regulatory agencies like the f.t.c. not being able to pursue the vast majority of consumer protection investigations. i've seen first hand how this shutdown is impacting communities across the country as the chairman designate of the committee on appropriations. e to the shutdown at the s.e.c., companies like uber will miss a key first quarter deadline. we can put a stop this chaos that's rattling our communities and our economy. this bill before us today is fiscally responsible and makes hard choices among competing priorities. provides a total of $23.688 billion in discretionary resources, an increase of $265 million over fiscal year 2018 level. the bill rejects the president's proposed
2:19 pm
elimination of the community development financial institutions fund, and cuts to the small business administration, which provides necessary resources to spur economic growth, particularly in underserved communities. the bill provides a pay increase for civilian federal employees in 2019 while putting a stop to the excessive raises to the vice president and other high-ranking administrative -- administration officials. in addition, the bill includes back pay for federal employees furloughed during this shutdown. one key feature of this bill is the total lack of controversial policy riders. this is a clean appropriations measure, squarely under the jurisdiction of this committee. but, again, most importantly, this bill will reopen the department of treasury, which includes the i.r.s., as well as the securities and exchange commission, small business administration, and multiple other agencies that have a direct impact on the lives and
2:20 pm
livelihoods of american families, businesses, and communities. by passing this bill, we'll be able to get more than 130,000 workers back to work and receiving a paycheck. it is long past due that we reopen government and this bill does exactly that for a number of critical agencies that americans rely on every day. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill today because this is just another one of the democrat party's political stunts. the 116th congress continues now under this cloud of a partial government shutdown, and it is for one reason and one reason only and that is the democrats continue to put their political agenda ahead of the security of our country. so here we find ourselves, the very first act of the new majority is to bring a senate bill forward without any
2:21 pm
hearings, without any debate, and certainly without any amendments. as you know, mr. speaker, democrats, they bring the bills to the floor this week are bypassing the process, bypassing every member's responsibility here in congress and that is to put their mark on each and every bill. but it's also maybe to distract from some of the president's ideas as well and in fact the president's funding request is completely normal and it is necessary. it's not extreme, it's not divisive, it's not political in any way whatsoever, but what is extreme, what is divisive, what is political, and what is unnecessary is the democrats' refusal to actually negotiate with the president. their refusal to hear the facts and understand the facts as presented by the experts. they're more committed to saving their political base than securing the border and opening the government, which
2:22 pm
we could do very quickly if they just chose to meet with the president and negotiate on good terms and good faith. but if that's not bad enough, the underlying measure itself is certainly not perfect. after all, it's a senate bill. might i remind you, mr. speaker. it's identical to the bill they passed last year and it does not include any of the house priorities. and democrats are not allowing any amendments, as you know, here today. so there is no way to improve this bill, to perfect this bill, and you we know we are the body of perfecting the senate's legislation. our constituents have elected us each here to represent them in congress, republicans and democrats alike, but not abdicate our responsibilities and simply accept something from the senate. in fact, this food is beginning the process i see is very dangerous and in fact is just asking this body, under this new majority, to have every member of the house of representatives to vote on nearly $300 billion-plus of
2:23 pm
spending without one committee hearing, without one bit of debate, without one amendment and without any bit of perfection and yet stand before our constituents and say we have given this full and thorough thought. now, there are many house priorities which house democrats and republicans support which would certainly improve this legislation. for example, the bill we passed last year out of the house had many great bipartisan elements to it. we passed it back in july and it contained nearly $276 million for the california land port of entry. fully funding what was necessary at the land port of entry, yet, the senate bill is $100 million short. additionally, the bill that passed the house last year included 20 pieces of legislation that were bipartisan financial reforms, which were approved by this chamber during the last congress with a vote of 270 votes or more. mr. speaker, you don't find that very often and you certainly haven't over the last couple of years, but yet it was
2:24 pm
included in what we passed last year, and might i add, it is completely omitted by the senate. so democrats and republicans, including chairwoman waters, herself, sponsored many of these provisions. i know she's here today and i hope she speaks to their absence in this bill today that we were building upon the jobs act of 2012. these provisions facilitated capital formation, enhanced our capital markets, provided targeted relief to various institutions, but more importantly, mr. speaker, it provided consumer protection, which i think and i would hope is a bipartisan quest for us. the senate bill also shorts the small business administration's entrepreneurial development programs, something that's been bipartisan in this house. they short is by more than $10 million compared to what we passed last year. it shorts the s.b.a.'s women business centers by $1 million and our veterans' outreach by $400,000. mr. speaker, those are things we included last year that the senate has found is not a
2:25 pm
priority. and the question i would have before this house today is -- do we no longer hold those as priorities anymore, and if we pass what is proposed today, we are in fact saying no longer a priority we focus on veterans or on women businesses. but if that's not bad enough, the senate bill is more than $31 million short on s.b.a.'s disaster loans program. many areas of this country, including my state, including the states represented in this room as we speak, are still reeling from last year's disasters. so do democrats really want to cut this lifeline short? had mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, i would hope not. by abandoning the house passed bill, we are not helping disaster victims. additionally, the senate bill contains nothing, and i say, mr. speaker, nothing for community development financial institutions to assist those with disabilities. are we standing here today, mr.
2:26 pm
speaker, and saying those with disabilities are no longer a priority of this house? a yes vote today would confirm that. mr. speaker, that's why i'm certainly not supporting this bill. but i know that i worked with my friend, mr. quigley, who is now the chairperson and we are going to have a great working relationship, but this senate bill is deficient of even his priorities. and i know it's very difficult for him to today introduce a bill that he didn't craft, that he didn't originate or than by name only today. and i know it's probably even more difficult that he's introducing a bill that was originally introduced by republicans in the senate, but it doesn't include even his priorities that i worked long and hard with him on, including the elections assistance commission, which was a strong priority of his. they cut it by more than $1 million over what we had included last year. the consumer protection safety commission is also $1 million below what our house bill was. and it does not fund the grants for pool safety which i think we all know is a long time
2:27 pm
house priority for many members of this body. finally, mr. speaker, the national defense authorization act, created entirely new structure for the treasury department's committee on foreign investments in the united states. they need another $6 million. just $6 million to meet the requirements of this new authorization, which will help protect all of our nation's interests, but i guess i should say it one more time, the senate has let it down and they don't include that in this bill as well. so i lay a lot of the blame on the senate bill itself and the components of the senate bill, but that shouldn't take away from the fact it's being introduced in this house today by the new majority. mr. speaker, i heard the presentations that were given on opening day last week as we were all sworn in, and i was hopeful there would be a very open, deliberative debate process engaged -- that we would engage in in this house and i know there will be those that will claim there is urgency and haste and we must move fast, but we should never move fast and hastily and
2:28 pm
disregard the constituencies that we each represent and the voices or putting our fingerprints on legislation in the name of efficiency or in the name of where we are today in the political differences. we must embrace this political debate. we must allow every member's voice to be heard. so mr. speaker, with that, i'm going to urge my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's give us a chance, let's come to the table. we can do this. in fact, mr. quigley and i have shown even as we worked through last year. we can fund border security. we can reopen the government. e can incorporate the we can incorporate the priorities of the democrats and republicans today. after all, we are closest to the people and don't their voices deserve to be heard? the american people are counting on us, mr. speaker. so they've elected us to do
2:29 pm
this. i hope we can do it and with that i rise in opposition and will be opposing this bill and will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished newly minted first-ever chairwoman of the house appropriations committee, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i am delighted to have the opportunity to work what we call our cardinals, the chair of this distinguished subcommittee of appropriations, and thank you for yielding me some time. mr. speaker, the trump shutdown is now in its 19th day. it is simply outrageous that more than 800,000 federal employees are going without pay and that the american people are being denied vital services all because of president trump's demands for a wasteful
2:30 pm
border wall. house democrats want to open the government, but the president and the senate republicans continue to obstruct and delay instead of working with us to get the people's business done. . the solution to this crisis is simple. pass the bills where we can can agree. and extend funding for homeland curity for a month, 30 days, to allow time for negotiation onboarder security and mmigration policy. i hope my colleagues across the capitol come to their sense answer stop this ridiculous, dangerous trump shutdown. unless congress acts, the american people will continue to experience serious impacts from the shutdown.
2:31 pm
taxpayers rely on the i.r.s. to assist them in making big choices for their financial planning. that advice helps families make important decisions. like whether to put money into savings or buy that new appliance to replace a broken one. with taxpayer assistance, phone lines, and centers closed for business, our constituents don't have anyone they can turn to. outside of the i.r.s., small businesses which make up the backbone of our economy also take a hit. with no access to small business administration loans during the shutdown, those businesses will remain unable to make capital improvements and entrepreneurs can't even attend workshops with the s.b.a. to seek advice. we reopen both -- we can can
2:32 pm
reopen both the i.r.s. and s.b.a. today along with other vital agencies like the s.b.c. and fatherly judiciary. democrats are -- and federal judiciary. democrats are again ready to act. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: i'd like to yield some time to the ranking woman of the appropriations committee, my good friend and wonderful representative from the state of texas, ms. granger. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. graves: as much time as she needs to consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for such time she may consume. ms. granger: mr. speaker, i rise today no opposition to h.r. 264. unfortunately, as with all the appropriations bills we consider this week, moving this bill
2:33 pm
across the house floor will not resolve the partial government shutdown. it's a job and responsibility of congress to appropriate funds. we must come together both republicans and democrats in the house and the senate to put together legislation solution that will reopen the government and fund border security. one that represents the will of both chambers anti-american people. by considering only the senate-passed versions of these appropriations bills, we're ignoring the will of this chamber by eliminating house members' involvement in the appropriations process. the bill before us today funds it at priorities at the expense of house priorities. in particular the financial services and general government bill falls short in several areas. constructing border points of entry, assisting taxpayers and u.s. businesses, and following through on commonsense bipartisan financial reforms.
2:34 pm
i want to thank my colleague from georgia, mr. graves, for his efforts today and over o the last several months to ensure that the house's voice is heard in this debate. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. quigley: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, the chairman designate of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2019 financial services and general government appropriations bill as an effective vehicle for federal government agencies affected by this bill as expeditiouslyly as possible. the legislation before the house today is vitally important to ensuring the federal government and the u.s. economy can work for the american people. it safeguards our financial system.
2:35 pm
it ensures a fair playing field for taxpayers. supports new businesses. cultivates the vibrancy and effectiveness of our telecommunications system, safeguards our workers, provides for the safety of our products, and protects the integrity of our elections. among these agencies funded under the bill are the consumer product safety commission, the federal communications commission, the federal election commission, the securities and exchange commission, the internal revenue service, and the small business administration. with this current unnecessary, misguided government shutdown, the agencies responsible for these objectives are not able to fulfill their mission for the american people. hundreds of thousands of federal workers are being furloughed without pay. consumer help lines are going unanswered due to a lack of staff. enforcement activities are being suspended. loans from the small business administration are not being processed. in addition, with the closure of the federal election commission,
2:36 pm
reports of political malfeasance are not being investigated. of great significance, without this funding, millions of americans will not be able to have their tax returns processed so that they can receive the refunds on which they rely to make purchases, pay bills, school tuition. these refunds when spent by taxpayers contribute immensely to the national economy, creating and maintaining countless jobs. as a member of the house financial services appropriations subcommittee, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. which passed the senate last month on a bipartisan vote of 92-6. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bishop: go back to work for the people, for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just point out real quick that i hear the arguments on the
2:37 pm
other side that passage of this bill will reopen the government right now, today, and could get it all working again. let me remind everyone, that will not happen. this is not the bill that fully funds what is outstanding at this point. this is one little component. but i love the passion from my friend from georgia. he and i worked well together on the committee and he's taught me much. and one thing he taught me was to fight for what's important. fight for those priorities that are important. one of his number one priorities is omitted in this very bill that he's advocating for passage of. fight for your priorities, house members. republicans and democrats alike, fight for what you believe in and don't let go because the senate passed something and it's easier. mr. speaker, with that i'd like to yield to the ranking member of the financial services committee, a great champion, for free markets and capitalism, my good friend, patrick mchenry, from the state of north carolina. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the
2:38 pm
gentleman from south carolina -- north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. mchenry: i appreciate the speaker and congressman from massachusetts. i'm he sorry vermont. sorry that's a north carolina-south carolina joke. i thank the ranking member for yielding. mr. speaker, this bill is plain and simple, it is -- it's a political stunt. this is the sad offering one week into a new majority. these bills are dead on arrival as the ranking member, my friend, tom graves said, when they arrive in the senate. the senate majority leader has already said this. it's dead on arrival. nor will it be signed into law by the president who also said he would veto. furthermore, these bills have been stripped of house priorities that were in this bill reported out of tom graves' subcommittee last congress. and they are not going to accomplish our number one goal, which is reopening the
2:39 pm
government and addressing the critical border security needs of our country. house republicans did our job last year by sending this and several other appropriations bills to the senate. that would have been signed into law, and ultimately avoid a shut down if our friends across the aisle had chosen substance over politics. this is a greater point. what we should be focusing on rather than this shell bill that is a political stunt is what's not in this bill. now, there are a couple things we have passed last congress in a bipartisan way. the incoming chair financial services committee and me as ranking member of the financial services committee both voted for. we had the jobs act 3.0 which passed this house last congress with 406 yes votes and four dissenting votes. why is that not included in this
2:40 pm
bill? it should be included in this bill. it is a high priority. why don't we see more bills helping those that are unbanked in this country? those living on the margins, those that are on the edge. why can't we get them included? why can't we have financial inclusion as a part of this bill? it does not express that. nor does it help people who live in rural communities who don't have a single bank branch in their county. so we have banking deserts in this country that separate people from access to basic financial service products. we need to fix that problem. that bill here before us doesn't address that issue, either. why aren't we doing more to help small business find the capital that they need? businesses are starved for additional risk capital so they can grow. create jobs. help the community. raise wages. but instead of talking about ways we can help people, this
2:41 pm
bill does none of that. it's a political stunt. we should be focused on helping people and helping those that are on the margins to financial inclusion. let's get back to the priorities that the american people sent us here to take care of. let's vote down this bill and let's vote yes on something that can clear through the senate and get to the president's desk and signed into law. i look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in constructive way in the coming months to do just that. but in the meantime, this is just a second week charade. not essential to what we should be focused on here in the house of representatives. we should be less focused on political optics and more about the reality of how we help everyday working americans. with that i yield back the balance of my time. to my colleague and friend, mr. graves of georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: i yield three nutes to the distinguished
2:42 pm
minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the financial services committee from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker and members. i look forward to working with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, but today i rise in support of h.r. 264, legislation that would reopen the federal government and put wall street's cop on the block, the securities and exchange commission, back to work. this president has all but closed the doors of the s.e.c., urloughing 94% of the agency and providing schemers with a free pass to swindle investors and small businesses. with such a skeleton crew of less than 300 staff, the s.e.c. cannot possibly oversee the activities of over 26,000 registered entities such as
2:43 pm
investment advisors, broker dealers, and stock exchanges. worse, the s.e.c. is unable to hold bad actors accountable through most enforcement actions, preventing harmed investors from obtaining relief. but the importance of the s.e.c. goes beyond ensuring the rule of law. businesses that are looking to enter the public's stock markets may have to delay their initial public offeringings -- official because the s.e.c. cannot approve their -- offings because the s.e.c. cannot approve their documents. they are left in legal limbo until the s.e.c. can get back to work. the trump shut down is jeopardizing the integrity of our financial markets and our hard-earned savings of millions of americans. so let's end this trump shut down and open the government so that the s.e.c. and other agencies can get back to work on behalf of the public.
2:44 pm
mr. speaker, members, i appreciate some of the comments that have been made about the fact that we have been able to work together o, both sides of the aisle, on the financial services committee, working on such things as the jobs act. but we can't do any of that. we cannot move. we cannot get to work with the american people because this president not only has shut down the government, but he took responsibility for it. he wanted everybody to know that he did it. that he not only did it but he's going to continue to do it until he can bend us to his will and get them $5 billion plus to put up a wall of some kind, we don't even know what it is. i want to say to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle and to mr. mchenry, yes. we're going to be able to work together on a lot of good legislation. but why don't you join with us and talk to the president and
2:45 pm
tell him to open up government. that we cannot continue to have the american people suffer in the way that they are doing. and the financial services agency unable to do the job. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: i'll just make a few points, this bill has already been voted on, if i recall, last week, the majority party put this on the floor, passed it out of the house, and guess what? the government's not open. this does not -- this is not the solution. don't get it why we're here today. and doing this in such a closed lockdown process. what is a solution potentially? could be if chairwoman's bipartisan efforts from last year were even given the opportunity to be voted on today. with a supplement.
2:46 pm
we're talking maybe 15, 20 more minutes of our precious time today too much to ask to perfect senate imperfections? that's what today's debate should be about. it's not about this legislation. we already voted on it. the voted -- we voted on it last week. guess what, the government is still not opened. that's only one reason, one reasonable only democrats are unwilling to negotiate with the president. they just don't like. mr. speaker, aid' like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. french hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, is recognized for two minutes. . mr. hill: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chair, thank you for the time today. i want to add my congratulations to the incoming chair of the house financial services committee. i look forward to working with her and our committee in the 116th congress. like my friend from georgia and nrk, this bill is not a
2:47 pm
constructive -- north carolina, this bill is not a constructive effort today. we voted on this bill last week. the mcconnell bill will not produce our government reopening. it's not helping the thing get reopened, put people back to work doing the people's work. and so this is a waste of our time you being on the floor today. we should put our emphasis to get leadership, democratic leadership in the house and senate working with the president on a solution to a comprehensive border security plan and reopen this government. i want to also thank my friend for letting me talk about the insufficiency of the senate bill as it does not contain our bipartisan provisions, 20 provisions this house approved, that we worked on in a bipartisan basis, that will improve access to capital across this country for small businesses, for our capital markets, and will lower the cost and make more transparent
2:48 pm
home buying. two things particularly i worked on with my friend, bill foster from illinois. the volcker harmonization act, which we passed in this house, was not included in the senate provision, and a provision to make insurance disclosures more transparent and more accurate for consumers for home mortgages was also passed strongly bipartisan by our committee and by this house, was originally in our proposal. it's not in the senate bill, mr. speaker. therefore, let's say to the american people, the bill we have on the floor today is not going to result in the government reopening, it's not going to be voted on in the senate, it's not going to be approved by president trump, and it's deficient. it does not include the bipartisan priorities in financial services ably included in the house version by mr. graves. i thank him for his leadership and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the
2:49 pm
gentlelady from new york, the chairwoman of the small business committee, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york, ms. velazquez, is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. speaker, we are now 18 days into the trump shutdown, and america's small businesses are feeling the strain. each day that this political stunt continues, entrepreneurs lose out on nearly $90 million in affordable capital through the small business administration's 7-a lending program alone. that is 192 small firms per day going without the resources they need to grow and create new jobs. as chairwoman of the small business committee, i am deeply concerned that president trump is holding america's small business sector hostage as he demands funding for a cruel and ineffective border wall.
2:50 pm
contrary to the president's remarks, this shutdown isn't just hurting workers who collect a paycheck in blue states, it is -- its impact are being felt on main street across this country. for three weeks now, the s.b.a., the only federal agency dedicated to our nation's entrepreneurs, has -- make no mistake about it. this puts hundreds of millions of dollars out of reach for small businesses who seek to utilize these services. for small firms operating in the federal marketplace, the shutdown could cost them to sacrifice nearly 7,000 contracts worth over $300 million each day. unfortunately, the consequences don't end there. for countless small businesses, from those surrounding our national parks to small grocers who accept snap, a lack of
2:51 pm
customers is leading to lost revenue and the bills are adding up. let us not forget what happened to our economy after republicans shut down the government in 2013. small business hiring and consumer confidence failed, the i.r.s. was unable to provide taxpayer assistance, and our economy lost billions because of disrupted government spending. but what this shutdown really comes down to is a president who time and again has sought to divide you us by labeling immigrants as the enemy. i am here to tell you that welcoming immigrants is not just a founding principle of this nation, it's good economic policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. velazquez: can i get 10 seconds? mr. quigley: you yield 10 seconds. ms. velazquez: immigrants are one of america's most
2:52 pm
successful entrepreneurs, starting about a quarter of all new businesses, and dreamers whose future our president continues to jeopardize starve businesses -- start businesses higher at rates than the overall public. instead of talking about building walls -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. velazquez: let's put the entrepreneurial sector back to work. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, largely, this debate -- you hear two different elements. you hear a little bit of a policy argument on the democratic side of the aisle. from our side you are hearing a process argument. i think this is really important. we are in essence the, what, third day of the 116th congress , and shutting the process down. 435 members' voices being silenced. extrapolate that across 800,000 constituents we each represent, those are the voices being
2:53 pm
silenced here today in the name of expediency, in the name of political stunts, in the name of finger-pointing. but with really without any solve or desire to bring a fruitful, positive conclusion to what is a very difficult and painful time we are in right now. i agree with that. i think about over the holidays -- and it's interesting how the other side says -- pointing fingers at the president here and there, but the president was here. he was in washington, d.c. he was waiting for the other side to come and have a discussion and talk about these tough issues together, to work through them. where were they? if i recall, maybe the incoming speaker-elect might have been in hawaii. other members were on vacations with their families. while families of these agencies were struggling and wondering about their next day, next christmas, next paycheck,
2:54 pm
the leader of the democratic party was on vacation while the president was here saying, i'm here. the door is open. let's talk. i know he extends the invitation. i hope they take us up on that. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from florida, mr. crist. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. crist, is recognized for two minutes. mr. crist: thank you very much. appreciate that, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i -- for 19 days, 19 days critical financial agencies that serve the people have been closed. taxpayers' assistance has stopped. the people's refunds are at risk of serious delay. small business support is suspended. consumer protection work has been halted. people are hurting. and it's a self-inflicted wound. but today we have the opportunity to reopen these critical agencies for the people. the solution is simple.
2:55 pm
vote yes on this legislation. put people above politics and reopen our government today. thank you. i yield back the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from illinois and the cradle of leadership of the cook county board, mr. garcia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois, mr. garcia, is recognized for how much time? two minutes. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. speaker, and mr. quigley. the trump shutdown is harmful and irresponsible. on the first day of this new congress, house democrats sent legislation to open up the government. i supported it and i will continue to support this legislation to open up parts of the government immediately. each day the republican shutdown continues, hardworking
2:56 pm
americans and families suffer. right now the i.r.s. is operating with only 12% of its workforce, threatening the agency's ability to process and disburse tax refunds in a timely manner. that's why today i am sending a letter to president trump with the support of my colleague, representative lloyd doggett of texas, and over 50 members of congress urging him to end the shutdown and warning him of the effects of that shutdown is having on families. just yesterday, "the washington post" noted that students relying on federal financial aid for college are facing trouble providing the department of education verification of their income because of the furloughs at the i.r.s. i represent many immigrant and working class families who rely on their annual tax refund to feed their families, pay their children's education, and buy
2:57 pm
the gas to get to work. families are suffering, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and reopen the government. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. when you think of the overarching discussion and issue and where the division is, it's really about the fundamental question about border security. some don't like the term the wall. i think -- i would hope, maybe, we are all for securing our country. maybe it's just terminology that separates us oftentimes, but through this time of thinking about the words we're choosing, lives are being altered. they're being impacted. individuals are losing their lives because of the illegal activity that occurs through our porous border and it's because, in many cases, insufficient funds. when we talk about terminology
2:58 pm
whether it's a wall, barrier, technology, it doesn't really matter what terms are used when lives are being altered daily while we squabble, just squabble over a few terms. it's amazing how the other side says they can't support this. this just can't support funding for the wall. what they're saying, really, they can't support this president because they don't like him. but in fact, on two different occasions within the last 18, 19 months, the new majority party did vote for wall funding. they voted for border security. it was $1.6 billion, two separate occasions, both times have been signed into law by this same president, and i wonder why is it too much to ask to just put in a different number, a little bit more. is our country not worth just a little bit more? is a life not worth a little bit more when national experts say it's necessary or are political differences going to stand in the way of that?
2:59 pm
i hope today we could break through that. mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: thanks, mr. quigley. mr. speaker, i stand in support of h.r. 264. this bill appropriates desperately needed funds for treasury and the internal revenue service. as the shutdown persists, the financial and emotional drains on employees and taxpayers continues. there are tens of thousands of furloughed treasury employees who want to work and would proudly do so but they cannot. they also cannot pay bills, cannot afford medical care and like us, cannot understand any of this. every day that passes and every minute this shutdown continues, it's too long and too costly. reopen the government and begin to negotiate. i spoke to the treasury secretary yesterday, along with the i.r.s. commissioner as well, regarding the impact of the partial shutdown on the
3:00 pm
i.r.s. and tax filing season. i was i formed that the i.r.s. will release its contingency plan for tax filing season in the next few hours or certainly within the next day. issuing refunds in the coming days apparently an effort will be made to reach that goal but it will also require a significant number of i.r.s. employees to return to work without pay. these developments are no substitute for fully funding the government and reopening the agency. reminder, the average refund is just under $3,000. that helps out a lot of middle-class individuals who will use it to pay down christmas debt, perhaps. they depend upon that as part of regular cash flow. mr. speaker, we do not know the full damage and cost of this shutdown, but we knew going into it that somebody was going to get hurt so we should end it today before any more damage is done. if a taxpayer calls the i.r.s. right now for assistance, they
3:01 pm
will hear the following, quote, live telephone assistance is not available at this time. normal operations will resume as soon as possible. but they're expected to go into work as well to help process tax form. the time has come for our cleengs both sides to stand up and vote yes and fully reopen these agencies. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i'll be prepared to close when the majority is ready. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm glad we're reaching conclusion of this because we just went through this last week, might i remind you. same stuff, same legislation. voted on, passed out of the
3:02 pm
house and guess what, the government is still not open and operating. so are we really trying to get to a workable solution here by the new majority? or just drive another wedge? mr. graves: this passage today if it were to occur will not change anything. it will only drive us a little further apart, will not reopen the government, let's make sure the sound bites don't get out there and the headlines aren't that because that's not what's going to happen at all. what is happening today is an abdicating our responsibilities as duly elected members of the house of representatives in the name of expediency and political tactics. that is what is happening here today. that's really what this vote is today. it's an affirmation if you vote yes that i'm for the expediency of doing away with my responsibilities because it's easy and politically
3:03 pm
advantageous. a vote no is say, no, i'm going to stand up for the voices of this house. i'm going to stand up for the constituencies we represent. i'm going to stand up for the priorities of this house. and wait and fight for a better process. this process is amazing. it's reckless, to be honest with you, mr. speaker. that -- i mean it's like, are we going to be a bicameral system anymore? is this an example of what we herbed -- what we should see, what we'll see in the days ahead there'll be no debate in committee. a bill is bro deuced. you twheached cartoons growing up, it seemed like a good process, they have an idea, write it down, send to it committee, they agree, disagree, maybe add ideas, you build support for something across the aisle and across the different coalitions and then you get to share it and advocate for it and then it goes to the other body and then they get a choice.
3:04 pm
do they want to make changes to it and such. that's not how it's happening today. this is the new majority. new majority. very closed. very dark process. in which not even democrats member -- democrat members. if i were one of the 60 new members elected on the other side i'd by throwing my hands up in the air saying, i did all that work for this? for you to tell me what i must vote on? and i have a binary choice yes or no? that's the only choice i get? i feel for the new incoming members. this is not what it was supposed to be like for them. i don't think it's what you recruited them for or as as well. it's a sacrifice really. sacrificing all our priorities that we've had as a house. ll for a process and because there are folks that just don't like this president. look, i've been in that position, mr. speaker, before too. in fact, i remember barack obama as he was president, i disagreed with him as a president. i didn't want him to fail
3:05 pm
though. that meant our country was failing. i disagreed with him on policy. and i would share that, and i would try to influence as well. i don't see any ability here or ideas of influencing outcomes. but i'll close with this, mr. speaker. i want to share with you some words that have been heard around this town and on the hill in recent days and months. these are quotes. members today seem to have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than getting their amendments made in order. they come here with real ideas and germane amendments only to be told no. again and again and again. next quote, we shouldn't be stifling debate. next quote, i do think we'll find a lot of agreement on some pretty commonsense ideas that we need more accommodating process. we need to follow regular order and the house needs to actually debate again. that was in september.
3:06 pm
also in september. i feel like we're livering in an authoritarian regime. heard on the hill here. it's like this majority is allergic to an open process. then lastly, with each new closed rule they bring to the floor shutting out amendments from both democrats and republicans the cynical hypocrisy grows louder and louder. instead of the people's house this is sadly -- this has sadly becomele on the people who agree , at that time with paul ryan's house. might i share the author of these quotes? it would be the chairman of the rules committee today, chairmanmark govern. those are his words. and he's absolutely right but he was forecasting today. in this moment. mr. speaker, this is a sad, sad time. in the house of representatives. very sad.
3:07 pm
i agree with mr. mcgovern. he's absolutely right. it's at this moment today in which he's been proven to be true, with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields. the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's interesting to hear a discourse course on functioning government as we look back at 2018 when think colleagues cross the aisle operated under . 3 closed rules mr. quigley: circumstances today are of an exigent matter. the government is not functioning. lives are at risk. the time for leadership, the time to not stymy ideas, the time for functioning government is apparently gone. so we must act and we must act quickly. if we're talking history, let's
3:08 pm
go a little farther back. in the history of the united states, when one party was in control of the white house, the senate, and the house of representatives, there has never been a shutdown until this administration. so today, when all those opportunities are past, we now hear it is somehow a chame that government isn't allowed to function. the government isn't functioning, it has to be opened. then we can begin operating under open bills and a man for the which everyone would like to see on a bipartisan basis. but right now there's real danger out there for the american public. so we've now entered the 19th day under this president's shutdown. the second listeningest -- longest shutdown in our nation's hiries and the third one under this administration. we are here to govern. we are here not to play games.
3:09 pm
let's do our job for the american people. let's support this bill. and mr. chairman, i -- mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 28, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a billick -- a bill making appropriations for financial services and government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia is recognized -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form.
3:10 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. graves of georgia makes a motion to recommit to move the bill back forthwith, page one after the dollar amount insert increase by $2 million. page 4 after the dollar amount insert decrease by $2 million. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. this motion seeks to address one of the many important shortfalls in the senate bill and i know there are many and we can only address one or two or an exception here in this moment of a motion to recommitism wish rules committee would have allowed for it. we have had that debate already today. allowed for members of both parties to offer their ideas, to nsert better concepts and make
3:11 pm
perfection out of something that's not a perfect product coming from the senate. thing eamerican people through their elected representatives in this body deserve the opportunity to amend and improve this legislation. but the new democratic majority has certainly shut down this legislative process. i just read quotes from the current chairman of the rules committee and his disgust with that very same concept or process from months ago and yet it's being imposed upon us today. this is our only opportunity to improve the bill. as meager as this might be, this is important. this motion is really, really simple. it adds $2 million to the treasury department's office of terrorism and financial intelligence. which would match the house-passed levels that we passed last year of $161 million. this important office is fighting on the front lines to enforce economic sanctions against rogue nations like iran, north korea, and russia. and mr. speaker, you and i agree
3:12 pm
how important that is and they must have the resources necessary. the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act passed this pouse in 2017 by a vote of 419 yesings to three knows. very -- three noes. very bipartisan. as good as it gets around here. and it passed the senate, 98-2. and president trump signed it into law. that's an amazing needle to thread all through there that we had great bipartisan support here in the house, the senate and the president signing this into law. this is overwhelmingly bipartisan, mr. speaker. and it brings a full force of our nation's sanctions against countries that seek to do us harm. this is something we should support. it's so important that o.m.b. director mick mulvaney sent us a budget amendment requesting more funds to stand up in this offices a. that's not a question we often get from mr. mulvaney as a request to increase spending anywhere and he did that.
3:13 pm
you know the former director himself as he served here he doesn't like to spend a penny more than needed so this is certainly a very important priority. the treasury also made a strong case that to comply with the sanctions act the department needs these funds. as we debate about the importance of the moment and where we are in time, i can see nothing as more important for us to focus on than to put two additional million dollars into this program and offset it as it has been described in the letter from the g.s.a.'s payments. i hope every member can support this commonsense amendment, we're improving on the senate bill, mr. speaker and i yield back asking for a yes vote on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rides? mr. quigley: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman rise in opposition? mr. quigley: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
3:14 pm
mr. quigley: thank you, mr. chairman. responsibly funding the federal government is one of the most important duties of congress. the previous majority failed to do the most basic task of keeping the lights on. here on day 19 of the 116th congress we democrats are here to reopen federal agencies shuttered by the president's shutdown. this legislation which has already garnered strong bipartisan support in the senate will ensure the federal government is open and working for the american people. now as to perfection. it is not perfect. i haven't been here for a perfect piece of legislation. what's critical to take from that argument though, is the fact that any one of us can argue that there isn't some measure absolutely critical to them and they're not going to vote for it because of that. but respectfully someone has to be the adult in the room and get things done.
3:15 pm
someone has to respect the process, the importance of what the government does, and the needs of the american people. you can't kick the ball in the forest reserve and go home. you have to move forward. this is the way to operate. the man for the which the senate has already done a manner comm in which we can accomplish and move forward together and try to get this better hopefully next year. but before we move on, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from virginia r one minute, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman cannot yield blocks of time. mr. quigley: i yield then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. i thank my friend from illinois. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to reconsider because i think it's important we remember president
3:16 pm
trump has always wanted a shutdown. he boasted a year and a half ago what the government needs is a good government shutdown. there is no such thing as we now know. on december 11, not ancient history, he sat in the oval office getting red in the face shouting, i will be the one to shut it down. he followed through on that process by torpedoing a process in the senate, once again, federal employees and federal contracts were being held hostage by this president all because of a broken campaign promise. he said mexico is going to pay for his wall. now needs a bailout from the american taxpayer. fortunately, the new democratic majority in this congress is going to stand up to this president and has offered a sensible plan to fund the government. the bill, which passed in the senate, is part of a four-bill package and by a vote of 92-6 provides a 1.9% badly needed pay increase for all federal employees and guarantees back
3:17 pm
pay to the federal employees furloughed during this unnecessary trump shutdown. i support the underlying you bill because we can and should end this trump shutdown now. i yield back. mr. quigley: i simply encourage my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. graves: mr. speaker, i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: i'd ask for the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
3:18 pm
3:19 pm
3:20 pm
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 5, proceedings will now resume on house resolution 6. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 6, resolution adopting rules of the house of representatives for the 116th congress and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: when proceedings were postponed on friday, january 4, 2019, the portion of the divided question compromising title 2 had been disposed of. pursuant to section 2 of house resolution 5, the portion of the divided question comprising
3:21 pm
title 3 is now debatable for one hour. the gentlewoman from florida, ms. shalala, and the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. shalala: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to support the ability of the speaker on behalf of the house of representatives to intervene and defend the affordable care act in the case of texas vs. the united states. this case is a backhanded way to do what republicans could not do legislatively -- repeal the a.c.a. and take away comprehensive health insurance from millions of americans. madam speaker, i represent a district that has the highest number of people, more than 100,000, enrolled in the a.c.a.
3:22 pm
whether you get your health insurance from your employer, from medicare, medicaid, or from the marketplace, you have something to lose if this disastrous court case is upheld. not only will insurance companies again be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, young people will no longer be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. prevention services like flu shots and annual checkups will not necessarily be covered without cost. women may once again face buying insurance that doesn't cover maternity care. our bipartisan efforts to phase out the medicare doughnut hole could come to an end. our seniors should not have to choose between paying exorbitant cost for prescription drugs and buying food or paying rent. an overwhelming majority of
3:23 pm
americans support all of these provisions. madam speaker, with this rule, we simply want to stand in court and defend the valuable protections in the affordable care act that this case threatens to take away. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. and i want to begin by welcoming my good friend from florida, first, to the rules committee and congratulate her on her first rule on the floor and finally thank her quite sincerely for the distinguished service she rendered to our country when she was a member of the cabinet for former president clinton. so it's wonderful to have you in the people's house. well, madam speaker, we're here again. this time the third and final title of the rules package for the 116th congress. title 3 authorizes the house to intervene, otherwise appear, or
3:24 pm
take any other steps in the case of texas vs. the united states lawsuit currently pending over the legality of the affordable care act. in essence, if this passes, the house will be giving speaker pelosi the authority to intervene in this lawsuit on behalf of the entire house of representatives. i spoke briefly about this matter during the debate on the overall rules package last week, and i'm sure my opposition to title 3 will come as no surprise to my friends on the other side of the aisle. today, we have several speakers on our side from ways and means committee, the energy and commerce committee, all of whom are deeply familiar with these issues and who will be able to tackle this in more detail. but for now i'll make a few key points. first and foremost, it really isn't a surprise that the democrats' poorly written health care law finds itself once again in legal trouble. the lawsuit this time arises from texas, where 20 states have filed suit on the grounds that because there's no longer a tax penalty in place for
3:25 pm
failing to purchase health insurance under the individual mandate, because there's no severability clause, the law itself is unconstitutional. last month, the district court in texas agreed with the states and struck down the affordable care act. that ruling has been stayed pending appeal. this really should not have come as a surprise to the majority. at the time the affordable care act was passed, many of us on the republican side raised similar concerns. the act, as drafted, was too poorly written, too precariously balanced to stand up under its own weight. the succeeding nine years have caused those predictions to pass. insurers have fled the market. for many americans, the care they thought they were accessing under the affordable care act has become anything but affordable. and before republicans acted last congress to repeal the tax penalty for individual -- the individual mandate, literally millions of taxpayers made the
3:26 pm
decision to pay that penalty instead of buying health insurance they could not afford. no matter what the outcome of this lawsuit will be, house republicans have over and over again expressed their support for the protections for those with pre-existing conditions. and should the texas decision be upheld, republicans stand ready to work with democrats to build an insurance system that protects people with pre-existing conditions, increases transparency and choice and lowers the cost across the country. that's exactly what we tried to do in the last congress with the american health care act, which we in the house proposed and passed as a solution to the broken law that is the affordable care act. while it fell short in the senate, its passage in the house clearly shows republicans were ready to take steps to fix this broken system. rather than taking those steps today, democrats are asking us to grant speaker pelosi a blank check to intervene in this lawsuit. rather than allowing the states to continue to pursue this
3:27 pm
litigation, as is their right under the constitution, democrats want this house to intervene. but the majority has not said why intervention is necessary and why the house of representatives must jump into this litigation against some of the states. other states have already made the decision to intervene in support of the affordable care act, rendering the intervention by this house unnecessary. at best, this proposal is a political exercise intended to allow the majority to reiterate their position on the affordable care act. at worst, it's an attempt to pressure the courts. but either way, there's no real justification for doing what the majority wishes to do today. madam speaker, the best way for the majority to protect americans and to protect access to health care is to pass the constitutional sound law that's well-considered, well-structured and that will result in lower premiums and better access to health insurance. it's not what they proposed here, which is a wasteful
3:28 pm
expenditure of taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible. with that, madam speaker, i urge opposition to the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. sorry. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. shalala: thank you, madam speaker. let me thank the gentleman from oklahoma for his kind words at the beginning of his comments. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentlewoman from florida, ms. shalala, for yielding me time. longest serving h.h.s. secretary in history, she spent much of her life leading on the issue of health care. madam speaker, the american people have been living in fear for years, worried that washington republicans would make good on their promise to repeal the affordable care act, that the president and his
3:29 pm
allies in congress would take away their ability to see a doctor or afford care, including for pre-existing conditions from asthma to domestic abuse. and who can blame them? when the minority controlled this institution, they voted 69 times to undermine the affordable care act, 69 times they tried to take away health care from more than 23 million americans. thankfully, the senate thwarted these efforts, and republicans weren't successful. but now the trump administration is using the legal system to try to do what the republican congress could not, strike down the affordable care act. its justice department has asked in a legal filing to invalidate this law and in doing so erasing protections for pre-existing conditions. now, i heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to pretend they're somehow champions of this provision. spite working to abolish them.
3:30 pm
and voting 69 times to vote against the a.c.a. mr. speaker, the american people are smarter than that. thankfully this is a new congress and we are not trying to abolish pre-existing coverage. we're trying to protect it in the opening days of this congress. this measure will allow the ouse to legally intervene to propre-existing coverage and the affordable care act. if you support coverage for pre-existing conditions, then you'll support this measure to try and protect it. it's that simple. enough with the sound bites. it's time to vote, and i urge all my colleagues to vote for this measure. i yield back my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i yield four minutes to a distinguished member of the rules committee and energy and commerce committee, mr. burgess, who also happens to be the foremost expert on the a.c.a. in the house of representatives.
3:31 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: let's get one thing clear from the start. this is not acting like we're doing something that hasn't already been done. it's not something new. nothing we do on title iii of the rules package will change what the house has already voted on, and how the court will receive it. title iii of house resolution 6 would allow the speaker of the thousands to intervene or take action in cases involving the affordable care act , in particular texas vs. the united states case where the court recently ruled that the affordable care act was unconstitutional after the elimination of the individual mandate. if this all sounds familiar to you it should. last week at the start of the 116th congress, the house voted on title i of the rules package that included the same provisions giving the speaker the same authority to intervene in the same case. actually, the speaker has already filed three motions to
3:32 pm
intervene in the texas case, the same day the rule was passed last week. the fact is nothing has changed between last week and today. the speaker doesn't need to be given this authority again. but what are the facts? the facts are that this bill, the affordable care act was sold to the american people on a misrepresentation. if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. you may remember that. if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. your premium will go down by $2,500. and of course famously we've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it. but as a practical matter, people are forced to buy insurance that they may not want. they certainly cannot afford. and in fact they're afraid to use it because the premium could -- the deductible and co-payment s so high. i'm not sure how the house intervening to support a failing policy while millions of americans are functionally
3:33 pm
uninsured, i don't understand how that helps us deliver better act stose care in north texas and across the country. americans should see this for what it is, a facade that the democrats want to revive the individual mandate under the devise of protecting americans are pre-existing conditions. i think the house can be more effective on delivering to the promises of the american people, that should be the goal of this house, it's not the goal of the house today, unfortunately. i urge my fellow members to vote no on this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chalet lay: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the distinguished chairman of the committee on education and labor, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from florida for her distinguished service as a secretary of health and human services and i thank her for yielding. i rise in strong support of this resolution.
3:34 pm
legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum agree this latest challenge to the affordable care act is legally frivolous. however because of the devastating impact it will have on americans it is critical that we use our authority to intervene on their behalf. if republicans successfully dismant they will affordable care act the consequence will be felt by all americans inclauding the millions of people with employer-sponsored coverage. they will lose protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. they'll lose prohibitions on annual and lifetime coverage limits. they'll lose access to low or no-cost preventive care and they'll lose the popular provision which allows young people to stay on their parent's insurance policies up to the age of 26. these protections are all a product of the affordable care act. and they're all at risk. we can't take the chance on this lawsuit being successful and then wait for a replacement. because we've already -- we know what the replacement will be.
3:35 pm
the house passed replacement for the affordable care act from a few years ago would have resulted in millions of people, millions of fewer people with insurance. according to c.b.o. the cost will go up 20% the first year. insurance will cover less than it covers now. and those with pre-existing conditions will lose their protections. that's what would happen if this lawsuit is successful. this vote is not about fulfilling our responsibility to act in the best interests of -- this vote is about fulfilling our response to believe the act in the best interests of the american people and so i encourage my colleagues to support the resolution and i yelled back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield three minutes to my good friend and distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. walden who is also the former chairman of the house energy and commerce committee
3:36 pm
and current ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from oklahoma. i rise in opposition to title 3 of the democrats' rules package which paves the way for speaker pelosi to union latrl -- june laterally take legal action on behalf of the entire house in the ongoing court cases about the constitutionality of the affordable care act and any future court cases as she fits. that's a big blank check. i object to the vote on the grounds of pure commonsense. the authority we're voting on today was already given to the speaker last week under title 1 of the democrat's rules package. you condition look it up. it's right there beginning on page 30. you'll find it after the provisions to make it easier for house democrats to increase taxes and to set up automatic debt limit increases. not to mention speaker pelosi see has already filed three motions toth court to intervene in the case since last week's
3:37 pm
vote. moreover, democrat attorneys general from intervening states are already defending the law in the case and the judge's ruling has already been stayed and appealed. so this is an unnecessary waste of time, paper, and ink. i can only assume part of the reason for today's show both is to distract from democrat's real radical views on health care. madam speaker, where's the single payer, $32 trillion government takeover of health care bill which ends employer and union-sponsored health care and forces the 158 million americans who getter that health care through their job into a one size fits all government-run plan. the majority of house democrats supported that proposal or one very like it in the last congress. when will they keep their promise to bring that plan up for a vote? madam speaker, today's vote to repeat the authorities given the speaker just last week is just for show. it's really not a serious exercise in legislating.
3:38 pm
meanwhile last week republicans brought a powerful but simple amendment to the floor that would have actually called on this body to legislate on something we all could agree needs to be done. and that is to lock in protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. unfortunately, in a fit of partisanship, democrats voted that down. therefore i urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary political theater today, vote no, so we can work together expeditiously to guarantee pre-existing condition protections for all americans and do so in a manner that can withstand judicial scrutiny. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my teem. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chalet lay zsh first ms. shalala: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: they are so very good at breaking things, it's just fixing them they can't seem to find an answer to. this underlying lawsuit is
3:39 pm
little more than that conspiracy between a criminally indicted texas republican attorney general and the trump administration that couldn't come find its voice when it was time to defend protection for pre-existing conditions for so many american families. there's no doubt there's collusion, there's republican collusion right here and it's collusion to strip away life-ceying protection from so many americans. intervening in this lawsuit is an important step in protecting families from the uncertainties of fine print denials, excessive premiums inadequate coverage an basic access to affordable health care. we must intervene because of a pre-existing condition and it's a rather unusual one, it's alled -- it's called amnesia. these republicans have political amnesia. they cannot remember before the affordable care act how many families got a diagnosis of bankruptcy at the same time they got a diagnosis of a severe
3:40 pm
disease or experienced an accident. they had over 60 votes to repeal the affordable care act but they never could come up with a plan to present to this house to replace the affordable care act because for all of its shortcomings, it is the best answer right now to the needs of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield four minutes to my good friend the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, dr. rowe, former chairman of the veterans committee and current ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to title 3 of the democratic rules package which will allow the house democrats to file a motion in the texas vs. the united states defending the constitutionality of the a.c.a. this lawsuit which was filed by more than 20 state attorneys general is about individual
3:41 pm
liberty and whether the federal government can force individuals to purchase a product. the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the a.c.a. six years ago, it did so under the logic that the individual mandate was a tax. i disagreed with that ruling then but because we now have repealed the tax, the supreme court's rationale for upholding the law as applied by the district court when it found the mandate inseverable from the law and struck it down. the promise of the a.c.a. which was we annika -- we can all agree on to increase access and lower the cost of health care. in my state of tennessee alone average premium prices have gone up 176% in eight years, the deductible levels are nothing more than equivalent to catastrophic coverage. let me give you an example. the majority of the uncollectible debt in hospitals i worked are people with insurance. not without insurance. giving people access to a card does not necessarily equal
3:42 pm
coverage and that's why my district alone you had nearly the same number of people who paid the tax that actually got the benefit. and the ruling with texas vs. the u.s., the courts are giving the congress an opportunity for a much-needed do-over. i spent over 30 years of my life taking care of patients. in that time i never saw a republican or democratic tsms pre-existing conditions can affect anyone and all of us in the house want to ensure those affected by serious illnesses can access affordable care. rather than keeping the cost burden on the middle class, let's work together to protect those with pre-existing conditions while trusting americans to make their own decisions when buying coverage that best fits their needs of the family. how can we find common ground? if you've ever received your health insurance from an employer in the private sector, you were covered by erisa and its updates under hippaa which protect people with pre-existing conditions from being denied
3:43 pm
coverage. unfortunately the rules weren't the same for the individual and small group markets and that's where the problem arose. a simple solution to this problem is just to apply those large group erisa protections to individual and small group market and the pre-existing condition coverage question is solved. whether you're for or against the passage of the a.c.a. it should be clear that the law is broken. instead of continuing to support a law that clearly isn't working, why don't we come together and enact real patient centered-free market health care system that treats individuals and small groups like big corporations? bottom line, the a.c.a. has failed -- has failed, at least in my state. the house of representatives has more important things to focus on than getting involved in litigation to resuscitate a law that's broken and is causing problems in families across america. if we defeat title 3 in the democratic rules package, i'm hopeful this will be the first step that we should focus on reforms to the health care system rather than wasting time
3:44 pm
on litigation. i urge opposition to the rule and yield back the balance of my tile. the speaker: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. shalala: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from pennsylvania a distinguished member of the rules committee, ms. scanlon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. scanlon: i rise today in strong support of the rules package before us. this package includes among other things a critical provision defending the affordable health care of americans. i came to congress with a resounding message for my constituents, to protect and expand affordable, quality health care. parents shouldn't have to choose between paying rent or health care for their children. students shouldn't have to choose between paying for school or health insurance. children shouldn't have to spend sleepless nights worried about paying for their aging parents' health care. it is unacceptable that american families are one health care
3:45 pm
emergency away from financial rule. -- from financial ruin. this administration is once again undermining the affordable care act and ignoring a clear message from the american people. quality health care is a right and should not be the privilege of the few who can afford it. i will continue using my voice in congress to advocate for those who need us most. pushing this body to protect the health care of my constituents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman sfr -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to my good friend, the distinguished member from ohio, dr. wenstrup, who not only provided life-saving care to our men and women in uniform in another career but has done that in this body as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. wenstrup: thank you. i'm a little confused here today. the part of the rules package that we're debating was already passed by the democrat majority last week. so why are we here again?
3:46 pm
i hear some people say i stand in strong support of this. good, you did last week too but i suspect some see it as trying to falsely claim that republicans are opposed to protecting americans with pre-existing conditions. i guarantee you as a doctor there is no part of me that doesn't want people in america to have insurance and coverage for their conditions. there is no part of me. . in fact, it's just the opposite. just last week in one of our first votes this year, every republican voted for the house to take action, word for word, guarantees no american citizen can be denied health insurance coverage as a result of a previous illness or health status. and guarantees no american citizen can be charged higher premiums or cost sharing as a result of a previous illness or health status. curiously, not one of my democratic colleagues voted for this. this is only the most recent
3:47 pm
action of many we have taken to support and protect americans with pre-existing conditions -- health conditions in the last few years. rather, this rule package allows speaker pelosi to use the u.s. house as a shield to try and defend the individual mandate, the same mandate this very chamber has already zeroed out. the individual mandate, in its original form, forced americans to buy something simply because they are alive or they will be penalized. this said that congress has the authority to penalize americans from not buying something, penalize you because you are alive. how's that for freedom? by the way, there's a difference between dismantling a flawed bill, the flawed affordable care act, and mending its every flaws, which we have tried to do and in some cases we have done. but going back to the rule, this takes away each member's right to vote on how we want the house to engage in litigation. rather, it gives more power to one person and takes power away
3:48 pm
from this body as a whole to have a say in the matter. i urge my colleagues to oppose this title of the rules package. it's bad policy, bad posturing. since this vote is a repeat, i repeat, republicans are and have been and have supported and have voted for coverage for americans with pre-existing conditions, period. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. shalala: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished chairman of the committee on the judiciary, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you. i thank the distinguished gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this house to defend the affordable care act in court against baseless and -- designed to dismantle the law. because the a.c.a., which passed without a single
3:49 pm
republican vote, millions of americans have access to health insurance, including those with pre-existing conditions. yet, ever since it became law, the a.c.a. has been the target of nonstop attacks by republican politicians intent rights. ing americans' the republicans voted 62 times to repeal the a.c.a. but never once came one a proposal to protect americans with pre-existing conditions. but despite all the republicans' efforts, the a.c.a. still stands today, continuing to guarantee access to affordable quality health insurance. but now 20 republican states' attorney generals launched a new attack on the law, based on limsy legal reasoning. the department of justice -- the trump administration has broken this well-established norm, now refuses to defend this law, and the judiciary committee will be investigating how the administration made
3:50 pm
this blatantly political decision to abdicate its responsibility and the committee will be holding those responsible accountable for their actions. but while the administration turns its back on people with pre-existing conditions and people would go bankrupt without the law's cost sharing subsidies, with this resolution, the house of representatives has an opportunity to provide the defense of the a.c.a. and the millions of americans that depend on it every day deserve. although legal scholars across the ideological spectrum say side is tiff's laughable, this rule would allow the house to ensure the law's vital protections are defended in court. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to allow the house to this latest republican assault against the health and well-being of americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
3:51 pm
texas, my good friend, mr. arrington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. arrington: thank you, madam speaker. and i want to thank the gentleman from the great state of oklahoma, my friend, tom cole. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rules package, authorizing the house to intervene in the lawsuit against obamacare, texas vs. the united states. the american people sent us here to do a job, to solve problems, to improve their lives, and move this country forward. however, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be more interested in playing partisan games than problem solving. why do i say this? because democrats have already voted to pass this exact provision last week. they've even filed three motions to intervene in the obamacare lawsuit. and on the substance of the matter at hand, obamacare is one of the worst, most destructive pieces of legislation to ever pass this
3:52 pm
house. and the facts are on that are indisputable. just ask some of my hardworking, god-fearing farmers and ranchers and small businesses in west texas. obamacare has ruined our health care system. it's crushing our economy, and it's breaking the backs of our small businesses and our working families. madam speaker, we shouldn't spend another day, we shouldn't spend another dime on attempting to prop up this top-down government-controlled health care system that is collapsing under its own weight. it is unconscionable to me and the american people to continue to throw good money after bad policy like this. instead of doubling down on obamacare and its flawed framework of mandates, taxes, and regulations that drove health care costs to the moon, we should be working on policies, together, that truly reduce cost and continue to provide access to the greatest
3:53 pm
quality of care in the world here in the united states. no government plan, no government program can define these desired outcomes. only a healthy market with robust competition and maximum consumer choice can achieve them. now, my colleagues on the other side talk about protecting americans with pre-existing conditions. i agree. my colleagues on the republican side agree. that's why we passed health care reform act with protections for folks with pre-existing conditions. that's why last week republicans voted to ensure americans with pre-existing conditions are protected. this is a game. we've already done it. we've already voted, and we stand firm to protect people with pre-existing conditions. but today's vote isn't about protecting people with pre-existing conditions. it's about a democrat-produced political theater. that's what it is. and it's about trying to save what's left of obamacare and it's actually in preparation for a single paid --
3:54 pm
single-payer system for socialized medicine and for complete government control of our health care economy. conclude, madam speaker, the american people deserve real solutions to the affordable care act. they deserve real solutions. markets that are free to create any number of products and services and people who are free -- mr. cole: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. arrington: i repeat, the american people deserve real solutions to the desired tcome of affordable care and that is markets that are free to create any number, any variety of products and services and people who are free to choose those products and what's best for them and their families. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. shalala: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr.
3:55 pm
allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. allen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to correct an injustice that will put the united states house back on the side of the people and protecting their health care. mr. allred: seeking to fulfill empty partisan politician, politicians in congress have sought to tear apart the affordable care act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. that ends today. when the american people chose this new congress, they said enough with the sabotage and the kowtowing to special interests seeking to divide us. too many times this very body has voted against the american people to repeal the affordable care act and with it the protections for people with pre-existing conditions. now a federal court has put at risk those same protections. that brings me to the story of natalie. as i traveled around my district, which i am now truly honored to represent, i met
3:56 pm
natalie. she told me her story. she was a lawyer with young children. hugo and mia. married to a law professor at southern methodist university. i met with her on the same day that the house had voted to repeal the affordable care act. i learned that natalie had stage 4 cancer and she had come to my event from her chemotherapy treatment. she explained to me her goal was to fight her cancer as long as possible so that her children would know her. natalie came to my event that day because she was worried about future moms like her who would lose their care if the affordable care act was repealed. natalie was worried about her return to the bad old days with lifetime caps and discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. she knew that because of her treatment she would have blown through any lifetime caps within a matter of weeks. stories like natalie are all too common across america. tomorrow will be one year to the day since we lost natalie
3:57 pm
and she's still an inspiration to me and to many other north texans and americans across the country. you see, madam speaker, natalie spent her final days while she was in pain, while she was saying her goodbyes, emailing and posting on social media and talking to her community about the need to protect the affordable care act so that other moms could get the care that they need. that's who we are as north texans, and that's who we are as americans. we believe in something larger than ourselves. we believe in protecting 130 million americans and more than 320,000 people in my district in north texas that have a pre-existing condition. now, let me be clear. the affordable care act is not perfect and this resolution does not solve all the health care problems facing our country. but as one of our first acts, i hope this measure tells the american people that we are on their side. i know i speak for many of my colleagues when i say this congress will not stop working
3:58 pm
for the american people. we will not relent to the special interests and the forces of cynicism. the american people now, more than ever, need us to work together to address the rising cost of health care. americans like natalie and her family deserve no less. it is truly an honor to address this body for the first time and it's my first act to lead this resolution to defend the affordable care act. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to my very good friend, distinguished gentleman from california, former chairman of the house intelligence committee, current ranking member of that committee, mr. nunes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank my friend, the top republican on the rules committee. i'm struggling to understand what we're doing here today. we already know that the democrats go to great lengths to defend the unconstitutional affordable care act. they really believe that congress can and should force
3:59 pm
the american people to buy something whether they want it or not. we know this because they made everyone vote on this same provision in title 1 of the rules package last week. now we're here voting on the same thing this week. why, some americans may ask. because democrats are trying to for this farce with a vote those with pre-existing conditions. this is a vote to give cover because the law they passed was unconstitutional and the individual mandate was deeply unpopular. they could put an end to this by passing a law that abides by the constitution, but they are not willing to do that. instead, we're wasting time here today voting on something for the second time. republicans know we can protect the people with pre-existing health conditions without infringing upon basic freedoms. this is why last week we voted on an amendment to the rules package to guarantee

36 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on